Partly allowed

Billu and 4 Ors. v. State of Up and Anr.

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2020A482/321/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed for quashing proceedings in a matrimonial dispute. High Court refused quashing as disputed facts require trial but allowed surrender and bail consideration within one month with a moratorium on coercive action. Type only value ok. Length less than. Short summary here.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings refused; surrender within one month allowed with bail application vicinity; coercive action on hold.

Billu and 4 Ors. Vs State of Up and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 321 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Billu And 4 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 28.06.2019 and cognizance order dated 06.08.2019 as well as entire proceedings of case No. 40434 of 2019 (State vs. Billu and others), arising out of case crime No. 842 of 2018, Sections 147, 354Ka, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station New Agra, District Agra, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.

¶7

The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that it is a matrimonial dispute between applicants and opposite party no. 2 and opposite party no. 2 has lodge false and frivolous FIR against the applicants and due to this FIR the Investigating Officer without collecting credible evidence, has submitted charge sheet against them. He further submitted that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶8

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge according to the provisions prescribed in Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within one month from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided expeditiously in view of the settled law laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court. For a period of one month from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶11

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 7.1.2020 v.k.updh.

Billu and 4 Ors. v. State of Up and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Billu and 4 Ors. v. State of Up and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Satvir Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Anil Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh Tripathi and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Vikash Kumar Shrivastava Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rajesh Vs State of Up and 2 Ors.